T
TrentCath
Guest
So wait it IS legitimate to question their orthodoxy??
- Status
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I do not think so, as I stated in that thread close to its beginning.
And as that thread is in the Vocations forum I think I will point everyone to this sticky thread posted by the moderator of the Vocations forum.
Orthodox Orders REMINDER
J
jwinch2
Guest
I honestly do not know enough about the Society of Jesus to comment on their past or present. I find the subject of the Jesuits interesting, but I am far from educated on the topic. I really enjoy what I see from certain Jesuit priests such as Fr. Mitch Pacwa but have not enjoyed as much what I have seen from others such as Fr. James Martin.
I would suggest the other thread that I linked would be a more suitable place for any discussion along those lines.
O
otjm
Guest
Nor, if I recall correctly, were they founded to teach high school and college. My great uncle was a Jesuit, and a missionary in China before World War 2.
The Jesuits will return to strength when they can flush out the members who pick and choose where they will support the Magisterium of the Church, if at all.
An acquaintance of mine, an M.D. was remarking how he had come to know several Jesuits, one or more of whom had expressed their difficulties in believing in God, but were “soldiering on”. I don’t think we will be hearing of a conversion story soon from him…
T
Thomas_Casey
Guest
No it is not legitimate to question their orthodoxy on a public forum. Those kinds of discussions do not help and do not allow the affected party an opportunity to defend themselves. If it is Church authorities raising the questions, you can cite them and discuss them.
It is reasonable and acceptable to ask questions of religious and others who are well informed on religious life to answer. Questions are acceptable provided that they are neither judgmental nor question the fidelity, crediblity or integrity of an institution or a person. We leave such questions to the Church’s authorities to ask.
The mission of this apostolate is to share the Catholic faith. Please stay within that framework and do so respectfully and patiently.
Addendum:
We want to see priests, sisters, nuns, brothers and deacons on our forums. To get them to stay, we must refrain from confrontational responses and show them that we appreciate their time and presence.
Thank You
J
JReducation
Guest
Not for those of use who lived through it, it’s not simplistic. We have to be careful here. Telling religious that we don’t understand our experience is like telling a black man that he does not understand racism or a Jew that he does not understand the Shoah. Your best source of what was happening in people’s minds is always going to be those who are inside.
Actually, the principle was and is, that if the orders returned to their roots, they would become more relevant to the times. There were some practical changes that were needed, which had nothing to do with the charism of the order. For example, whether to wear a floor length habit or a knee length habit, did not change the charism of a religious community. One of the best examples of this is the Rule of the Poor Clares. St. Clare tells the nuns that the habit has to be comfortable, practical, fit the culture and place, be appropriate for the climate and take into consideration the likes and dislikes of the sisters. For 800 years, the Poor Clares have had over 100 variations of the habit. There is no single Poor Clare habit. There never was. Clare did not care. Whether they wore the long grey wool habit that she wore, the modern brown habit, or some other version, does not change the charism, because it was never part of the charism.
No one denies this. What many religious asked themselves was whether or not this was what they were founded to do. Many realized that it was not. I remember when we went through this. We ran parishes with schools. We grappled with that. Finally, it became clear that we were never to run parishes and schools. Regardless of how many converts or how many people learned the faith in our schools, we were out of compliance with St. Francis.
That’s how you get communities and movements such as the Franciscans of the Renewal, who will not run parishes or schools, the Franciscans of the Eternal Word, the Franciscans of the Holy Family and how the larger Franciscans are dropping schools and parishes, keeping only those that serve the poor. The original vision of the founder was to live among the poor.
Male religious also realized the grave injustices that we were commiting against our own men. As I explained above, we sent clerics to school and non clerics we used as houseboys. We created double communities inside one community. For my own religious family, this was embarrassing. We had changed the constitutions to fit the needs of parishes. Of course, parishes are run by priests. We had adopted a custom of ordaining a lot of men and allowing only the ordained to govern, to vote , to go to school, to preach, to teach, to guide sould, etc. When at our General Chapter in 1970 the Cardinal Protector asked, “Would Brother Francis be elected Supeior General if he came back?” The answer was, “It would be illegal. He’s not a priest.” When the capitulors heard themselves saying this, they realized, that the order was in trouble. It had beocme illegal for the founder to run his own order.
When they went back to the Rule of 1221, they found that what they had been doing since the 1800s was a violation of the rule. The Benedictines had the same experience. This called for an examination of everything that these orders were doing. Many things were found that were good, but were not appropriate.
J
JReducation
Guest
Not all sisters were orders. This is what has to be understood. Many sisters and male religious too, adopted monastic customs. But these customs, which are good, noble and beautiful for monks, were not meant for sisters in congregations, Clerks Regular, congregations of brothers, or the Franciscan family. But everyone was doing it.
I remember that we lived in monasteries with an enclosure. Suddenly, we remembered that during Francis’ lifetime, a monastery had been built for the brothers. Francis had torn it down with his own hands. He was furious. We also remembered that the Vicar General, was excommunicated for commanding the friars to live in monasteries and chant the Divine Office. He was received into the Church on his deathbead, but never back into the order. We were horrified that we were doing the same thing that Francis had abhorred and the same thing for which a Vicar General had been excommunicated.
There was nothing wrong with any of these things. Monastic life is beautiful and has the place of primacy in religious life. It is the most noble of all religious vocations. But it is only for a select few, not for every religious.
I will never forget my experience of the Christian Brothers. While they are dying out in the USA, they are growing in the developing nations. That’s because this generation of Christian Brothers is doing what St. John de La Salle wanted. They are teaching the poor, not the middle class, which is what they did in the USA.
Originally, they began with the children of poor immigrants, but eventually, these immigrants were no longer poor and the Brothers did not leave them. They stayed. That’s when these communities deviated. They deviated when they stayed where they should not have stayed.
That’s why, today, as a safeguard, many communities have in their constitutions parameters that define where they serve, whom they serve and what work they do. For examples, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity do not teach the Christian faith or try to convert. That is prohibitted in their constitutions. Mother made it very clear that their mission is to care for Christ in the distressing disguise of the poor, not to educate, convert, catechize, etc. There are other religious communities called to do that. The Franciscans of the Renewal have it in their constitutions that they must leave as soon as the people around them become middle class. They are not there to evangelize or convert. They are there to live as Francis said, poor among the poor. Their presence is their preaching.
These things had been lost and are being recovered. Many people did not like it. They wanted to get into political and other goofy stuff. Others wanted to stay as we were, because “it worked”. Even though they were being told that it was not for them. Others found the transition backward very hard. It has not been an easy journey.
The question that I always ask lay people is this. “What exactly do you miss from the religious of the past?” When I ask this, I’m looking for very concrete things. Piety, prayerfulness, devotion, are not really concrete, because we can’t measure those. I’m looking for, “more teaching in Catholic schools” or “habits” or “common refectory” or things like that. Those are very concrete.
If you folks can list the things that you miss or that you would like to see, then we can discuss it and all be on the same page. Right now, I feel that we’re discussing two different things. My feeling is that the layman is discussing externals and the religious is discussing fidelity to the founder and charism, which is really a disposition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This isn’t the first time you’ve mentioned this here on CAF, and I wanted to mention that this had a profound impact on my discernment process when it came to lay orders.
I love St. Francis. I credit him for safeguarding me during my tumultuous childhood. I reverted back to Catholicism thanks to a conference run by Franciscans. My birthday is October 4th - his feast day. I spent years thinking I was going to join him within his order as a Secular Franciscan.
But with what you said above, and with what you have said before, it isn’t what I’m called to do. I preach. I teach. I write. I study. And I do it for all classes, all ages. Upper, middle, lower, rich, poor, white, black, latino, pig latin, l33t, it doesn’t matter. You can’t escape it, regardless of where you’re at - I’m coming at you. And when I prayed and thought about these things, I knew that despite my emotional attachment to Francis that I’m called to be with the “other” Holy Father - St. Dominic. Because I’m not called to work with the poor, and I’m not called to teach by my presence. I’m called to instruct, educate, and learn. And it’s not that Franciscans don’t do this, it’s the fact it’s the Dominican’s primary charism. It’s what they do. It’s what I’m called to do.
This is all with myself being a married layman. I “only” have to take promises to follow the Rule of Dominic my entire life. I’m pretty sure I can even get re-married if (God forbid) something happened to my wife. Now, imagine if I went ahead and joined the Secular Franciscans, not knowing the above. They tell me “you can’t continue the work you’re doing - we work with the poor. It’s in the Rule”. Imagine how I would have felt then? That’s not what I signed up for!
I’m certain there was a lot of people in that position, and it must have been hard for them to go back to the original Rule. Now that Orders have gotten back to how things should have been, people like me and my good friend with the Salesians (he’s getting ordained next year!) are able to look at our vocations clearly.
T
TrentCath
Guest
Thanks for the confrontation
J
JReducation
Guest
Remember, the rules and constitutions for the secular orders are not the same as for the religious.
It is true, that the charism of the Dominicans is to preach and teach. The Francisans preach and teach, but poverty takes the place of primacy. That will determine the difference between a Dominican house and a Franciscan house. A Dominican house will run more like a monastery. A Franciscan house will be much less monastic. The actual physical structure and organization is different. For the Franciscan, poverty demands a simple house with a chapel and the basics. For the Dominican, the contemplative or monastic dimension of their lives requires a little more by way of physical enviornment.
You have two families of preachers, but the one finds itself living and preaching among the poor, while the other extends further, for lack of better wording.
The secular orders of the two families call for the members of live the spirit of the founders, but within their state in life and context. No one will ask a Secular Franciscan or a Lay Dominican to sell their house and do X. It does not work that way. The constitutions impose duties that are appropriate for their state in life, be they secular priests, married men or women, parents, grandparents, etc.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Everything you post helps Brother. You should know this by nowRemember, the rules and constitutions for the secular orders are not the same as for the religious.
It is true, that the charism of the Dominicans is to preach and teach. The Francisans preach and teach, but poverty takes the place of primacy. That will determine the difference between a Dominican house and a Franciscan house. A Dominican house will run more like a monastery. A Franciscan house will be much less monastic. The actual physical structure and organization is different. For the Franciscan, poverty demands a simple house with a chapel and the basics. For the Dominican, the contemplative or monastic dimension of their lives requires a little more by way of physical enviornment.
You have two families of preachers, but the one finds itself living and preaching among the poor, while the other extends further, for lack of better wording.
The secular orders of the two families call for the members of live the spirit of the founders, but within their state in life and context. No one will ask a Secular Franciscan or a Lay Dominican to sell their house and do X. It does not work that way. The constitutions impose duties that are appropriate for their state in life, be they secular priests, married men or women, parents, grandparents, etc.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I know the Rules are different for us laymen, but the primary charisms with the orders remain fundamentally the same for laymen. The main point I was getting at is even as a layman, I could see myself getting upset if I joined an order with certain expectations only to be told later “oh hey, we gotta change things up to the way they should have been!”.
J
JReducation
Guest
This happened to many religious. While there were religious who were confused and upset because they expected Vatican II to thrust them into the future, don’t ask me how, because I don’t know . . . there were others who were very confused and angry, because they were told exactly what you just said. “We’re doing it wrong.” It was not that blunt, but that was the message.Everything you post helps Brother. You should know this by now
I know the Rules are different for us laymen, but the primary charisms with the orders remain fundamentally the same for laymen. The main point I was getting at is even as a layman, I could see myself getting upset if I joined an order with certain expectations only to be told later "oh hey, we gotta change things up to the way they should have been!".
I will never forget an older friar who was a priest. If he’s still alive, he must be very old. He was close to 60 a the time. He had been a parish priest and had lived alone for many years. He was a really good man. Apparently, he was a good pastor too.
He was recalled to live in a fraternity. They parishioners had given him a car at some point. I don’t know the whole story. He had used this car and he was independent, because he had his little care to move around. When he came to the fraternity, he was asked to surrender the keys. The keys were put on the buletin board next to the clipboard. If you needed a car, you signed out the car. If it was unavailable,you walked or took public transportation. I recall watching this older man walking to the bus stop one day. I felt so badly for him and at the same time, I felt so much admiration. It must have been very hard to come back into a group setting where Father is just one of the brothers.
I recall a sister who was older, past 40. She was assigned to a community with three other sisters to live in a slum. There was no convent. They rented an apartment and attended mass at the local parish. They did wonderful work for the poor. They ran literacy program, taught CCD, ran a clinic, did youth ministry, found housing for displaced people. They did everything that their foundress had done 200 years before. I remember that this sister had been a teacher for a very long time. She told me that the thing she missed the most were the kids. Their congregation had always taught, from its erection. But teaching was one of its apostolic works. They were founded to do whatever was needed for the poor. Gradually, they became a teaching congregation. The other works done by the early sisters were no longer done by them. When they began to do some of these other apostolates among the poor, some of the sisters had to be pulled out of the schools. I imagine that more than one missed the kids. They were trying to strike a balance between the different apostolic works among the poor.
There have been mistakes made and there are always casualties, even when you do things right, much more when you make mistakes. But the only way for religious life to be what it is supposed to be is to be faithful to its charisms. That does not mean going off half cocked and doing something crazy like those people who poured blood on bombs or whatever they were. The founders did not envisioin such behavior. That was rather strange. I hope that does not offend.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Cojuanco
Guest
I’ll bite. I see the reasons why things are as they are, but still, I’ll say my piece. Note, however, that I wasn’t around for most of it, being born in the 90’s, but my parents were around at that time, and they remember when there were so many religious around (this was the Philippines, so basically, even more abundant than now).These things had been lost and are being recovered. Many people did not like it. They wanted to get into political and other goofy stuff. Others wanted to stay as we were, because “it worked”. Even though they were being told that it was not for them. Others found the transition backward very hard. It has not been an easy journey.
The question that I always ask lay people is this. “What exactly do you miss from the religious of the past?” When I ask this, I’m looking for very concrete things. Piety, prayerfulness, devotion, are not really concrete, because we can’t measure those. I’m looking for, “more teaching in Catholic schools” or “habits” or “common refectory” or things like that. Those are very concrete.
If you folks can list the things that you miss or that you would like to see, then we can discuss it and all be on the same page. Right now, I feel that we’re discussing two different things. My feeling is that the layman is discussing externals and the religious is discussing fidelity to the founder and charism, which is really a disposition.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I miss the fact that there used to be more Catholic schools in the middle-class areas, with an affordable tuition to pay - until college, the nearest Catholic school was rather far away, and the tuition was certainly not for lower-middle-class people like me.
I’m peturbed that there is someone working at our parish, doing remarkable work in catechizing the children of the parish, being called “Sister” - and yet I’ve never seen her in a habit.
I mean, I’ve seen a Franciscan friar in person once - and that was for a retreat for our particular apostolate.
I’m concerned by the fact that, until recently, when you mentioned the Society of Jesus, the first things that came to mind was someone either fastening themselves to the fence of the local power plant, teaching things that were certainly not orthodox, or when in contact with the political class, serving to undo the work which your order is trying to do these days.
I was peturbed that a good deal of the religious these days don’t look like the ways I was taught religious were “supposed” to look like, i.e. they wore clothes that I would wear to lecture (thank you for disabusing me of the notion that it was all modernism).
Also, just two questions - first, there are some Norbertines that live not too far from where my parents live - they run a boarding school which, to put it mildly, are stratospheric in tuition. Their priests and brothers are good, though, and do serve in parishes. Is this allowed?
Secondly, you mention that Franciscans before the nineteenth century didn’t have altar rails in their churches. Why, then, does one of the historic California missions have an altar rail there? Was that something added later? I got the impression it was always there.
J
JReducation
Guest
Those are some good points. I can’t explain all of them, because I don’t know all of the communities involved, but let’s see how much I can help. I’ll have to snip a little to get it all in. OK?
Even among nuns, this was the case. St. Clare, told our nuns to decide what to wear and she gave them criteria. Interestingly enough she was ahead of her time. She told them that they had to factor in culture, local customs, climate, and the likes and dislikes of the nuns. Every Poor Clare monastery decides on its habit.
The same was true for communities of brothers. Some had habits and others never did. The Marianists brothers were never allowed to wear a habit. It’s in the constitutions handed down by their founder. The Missionaries of Charity Brothers are not allowed to wear any kind of distinctive garb. Mother Teresa prohibited it. She wanted her brothers and sisters to dress like Hindus. Hindu women wear saris and Hindu men wear shirts and slacks. Because these communities are younger, they never gave in to the “monastic look”.
The truth of the matter is that most religious who ran Catholic schools in middle class areas were not supposed to be there. Many of them began as schools for the poor and the area prospered. The religious overstayed. It became one of those things that no one thought much about it, until the 1950s or so. It is also true that many bishops asked religious to take over middle class schools and they did it to help out. Originally, the intention was short-term. That did not happen. When teaching congregations examined their origins, they found that their founders never intended them to serve the middle class. They began to move to other areas, usually inner cities, immigrant communities, people with disabilities and other areas of education that serve the poor. Obviously, as I said, this did not make many people happy. Many left. But others left, because the community decided to stay in the middle class school. These religious felt that they were betrayed. This was not the founder and charism that they had fallen in love with. It went both ways. Those who left because they didn’t want to leave what was familiar and those who left, because they didn’t want to remain the status quo, but wanted to go back to the origins.
Most religious communities of women are not nuns nor are they orders. They are congregations or societies of apostolic life. Some did not have a habit when they were founded. Others had a habit that was imposed on them, usually by bishops. Others had the option of a habit. These communities were given permission to drop the habit, if they chose to do so. Bl. John Paul confirmed this permission in Vita Consacrata. Other communities did have a habit. The founder intended for them to have one. The Vatican asked them to simplify it. Unfortunately, they started to trim here and there and ended up without one. The full fact is that not all women religious are supposed to wear habits. It depends on the charism of the community and the wishes of the founder, sometimes, the founders left it up to the sisters to decide.
Even among nuns, this was the case. St. Clare, told our nuns to decide what to wear and she gave them criteria. Interestingly enough she was ahead of her time. She told them that they had to factor in culture, local customs, climate, and the likes and dislikes of the nuns. Every Poor Clare monastery decides on its habit.
The same was true for communities of brothers. Some had habits and others never did. The Marianists brothers were never allowed to wear a habit. It’s in the constitutions handed down by their founder. The Missionaries of Charity Brothers are not allowed to wear any kind of distinctive garb. Mother Teresa prohibited it. She wanted her brothers and sisters to dress like Hindus. Hindu women wear saris and Hindu men wear shirts and slacks. Because these communities are younger, they never gave in to the “monastic look”.
If you live in a middle class neighborhood, you will see very few Franciscans. Most Franciscans have been pulled out of middle class neighborhoods. There are still many friars in parishes, usually poor parishes and immigrant parishes. Other than that, you will find more Franciscans on the streets, just walking and talking to people, doing pro-life ministry, in shelters and soup kitchens, communications, retreat work, homes for the sick and dying, and other outreach ministries. Also, we’re ordaining less men. Our numbers have settled for the last 5 - 10 years, but the focus is on being a friar, not on being a priest. Many men who enter are not called to Holy Orders. They study theology, become theologians and do many ministries that were once done only by priests: retreats, spiritual direction, teaching, sacramental preparation, etc. If you go to a poor parish, you may find friars there.
J
JReducation
Guest
The Society of Jesus has had many problems. However, their last General Congregation is very promising. Read for yourself With Renewed Vigor and Zeal
As I said above, clothing is a matter of their charism. Marianist Brothers are going to dress like teachers. Alexian Brothers are going to dress like physicians. Missionary of Charity Brothers are going to dress like Hindus. Franciscan and Dominican Friars are going to dress like mendicants or like the working class in their particular culture. Missionaries of the Poor are going to pray and sing in Caribbean tones and style. They were founded for that culture and they are growing. They are now in three countries. They allow only 1/10 of their men to be ordained to keep the number of priests down. They don’t want to pulled into parish work. If they don’t ordain many men, they are free to do outreach work, very much like the Missionaries of Charity and many Franciscans.
The Norbertines follow the Rule of St. Augustine as do the Dominicans. They are allowed to do this. It’s part of the Augustinian charism.
The Crown or the bishop commissioned the missions. They never belonged to the friars. The friars were to raise the money, build them and run them until they were pulled out. They had to build them according to the wishes of the authority doing the commissioning. If you go to Quito, Ecuador, you will find one of the most beautiful Gothic cathedrals in the Americas. The altar is gilded in gold. It was built by the Franciscans of the Observance, which is ironic. The Observant Franciscans were the most austere of the friars. But this is what the Crown wanted and paid for. When you go next door, to the friary, the chapel is a rectangular room with an altar, tabernacle, statue of St. Francis and a few benches, no kneelers, communion rails or much color. If you look at the chapel on EWTN, that’s the traditional Franciscan chapel. The sanctuary is usually very small, simple, without railings and a crucifix or an icon.
You said something about acting the way we used to act in the past. I’m not too sure what that means. I know that in many male communities it meant acting very clerical. This was OK for clerical communities. In mixed communities, such as Franciscans and Benedictines, this had to go. Francis and Benedict founded brotherhoods where priests were admitted, as long as they did not stand out or claim any special privileges.
I hope this explains some things.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Cojuanco
Guest
Thanks for answering all my questions. What I meant in the comment you weren’t sure about, was basically explained elsewhere.
I
iloveangels
Guest
The other interesting thing is that sometimes, at the outset, people could fit into either of two charisms. I know I have things in my life that seem to have resonated with the Dominicans–I have loved books all of my life and have taught the sciences in private schools, to the children of doctors and lawyers among others. On the other hand, there is much in my own private life that resonates with the Franciscans, and I won’t go into that, but I really could have been either. Of the two, the Franciscans is the one that I feel closer to because it’s closer to home considering my personality and personal history, if that makes any sense. And honestly, it’s the one that’s geographically closest to me too (geography does count).Remember, the rules and constitutions for the secular orders are not the same as for the religious.
It is true, that the charism of the Dominicans is to preach and teach. The Francisans preach and teach, but poverty takes the place of primacy. That will determine the difference between a Dominican house and a Franciscan house. A Dominican house will run more like a monastery. A Franciscan house will be much less monastic. The actual physical structure and organization is different. For the Franciscan, poverty demands a simple house with a chapel and the basics. For the Dominican, the contemplative or monastic dimension of their lives requires a little more by way of physical enviornment.
You have two families of preachers, but the one finds itself living and preaching among the poor, while the other extends further, for lack of better wording.
The secular orders of the two families call for the members of live the spirit of the founders, but within their state in life and context. No one will ask a Secular Franciscan or a Lay Dominican to sell their house and do X. It does not work that way. The constitutions impose duties that are appropriate for their state in life, be they secular priests, married men or women, parents, grandparents, etc.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I also thought about the Carmelites at one point, but I really don’t belong to them. I just love them.
I
iloveangels
Guest
Br JR,
I have a very strange question to ask of you. Please don’t start typing in all caps, OK?
I’ve been very poor, as in looking for something to eat, poor. That’s not that worst thing that can happen to a person, seriously. Is “poor” always defined as economically poor? I recognize that this question might mean a different thing here and in India, for instance. Although Mother Teresa of Calcutta made a remark about loneliness being the leprosy of the west.
M
Mike30
Guest
In the interest of fairness and balance may I suggest the book Sisters in Crisis by Ann Carey? While I have no doubt as to much of what you say, your personal knowledge of it and of your sincerity in saying it, there were other forces at work in those heady days after the Vatican II Council which were incredibly destructive to Religious Life and the Church in general. .By the late 1950s, many men and women religious realized that they were doomed. Their religious communities had the same name and may have worn the same habit as the founder, but its way of life and its work was different. Even the relationship between the members of the community were not the same. For example, Franciscans realized that if Francis came back, he would never be allowed to rule his order. If Bonaventure came back, he would not have been allowed to be a kitchen helper and cook, which he did for many years or Anthony would have been forced to become a priest, instead of the way that it happened, according to Providence’s plan. He became a priest just three years before he died, after 17 years as religious, preacher and theology professor.
These concerns were presented to Pope Pius XII who advised the religious to wait. When Vatican II declared that all religious orders, religious congregations, secular orders and secular institutes had to go back to their roots and begin again, the bottom fell out. Many men and women were very comfortable in the new version of religious life. They did not feel called to live the life that the founder had designed for them. Going back was hard for them. They left. In many houses, superiors pushed so hard that many men and women got angry and left. Some religious became angry, because they thought that the Church should be encouraging them to go forward, not back and they left.
None of this would have happened if the religious communities had remained faithful to their founders, if the bishops had told the laity to wait until they could meet their needs instead of pushing religious to become what they were not and if the laity had paid close attention to the religious life and noticed that they were getting services at someone’s expense. There were religious who were being treated as servants and as if the consecration of their lives had little or no value so that others could run schools, parishes, and medical facilities. The fact is that religious could have done those things, if left to do them on their terms, according to the principles left to them by their founders.
Many people still argue that religious life was being lived in these houses. However, that is not the point. The point is that the religious life that was being lived in those houses was not always the same religious life that founders had left us. You don’t just want religious. You want religious who will be as their founders wanted them to be. You don’t want Franciscans who act and pray like monks. That’s not what Francis founded. They don’t do Gregorian Chant, don’t have scholas and choirs, don’t have communion rails in their chapels, don’t distinguish the ordained friar from the lay friar. They are all consecrated men. If you get that, that’s not what Francis founded. Why would you want it in your parish?
I say we the unfaithful, because our grandparents and their grandparents didn’t know any better and didn’t have the resources to learn. They went by what the priests told them and what the sister in school said. But we have access to a great deal of information. Before we get too rattled, we need to look at what happened between the Middle Ages and the Age of Enlightenment, what happened between then and the 1960s, that will give us a clear picture of why we have the problems today.
We are recovering. We will never have the thousands that we had in the past. This is good. As Mother Agnes of the Sisters of Life once said, we want dedicated and faithful religious who will live according to a charism. She’s right. We need to focus on recruiting men and women who can be faithful and stop focusing on increasing the numbers in the personnel roster. The religious life is not going anywhere. Some communities will become extinct. New ones are born. Others merge and many old ones return to their roots and you will not see us in your neighborhood again. But if you’re ever under a bridge, a homeless shelter, a school, college, or a dispensary in some rundown part of town, we would welcome you. Please don’t ask us to be Bring Crosby and Ingrid Bergman. That was the worse portrayal of religious life, but a beautiful movie.
We have many holy men and women, people of prayer, great charity, dedicated to their communities and devoted to their founders and the vision of their founders. They have not disappeared.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Another good read and commentary on the current religious life of Sisters and Nuns would be Unveiled: The Hidden Lives of Nuns by Cheryl L. Reed.
I
iloveangels
Guest
I’m pretty sure, based on what I’ve read about these things, Mike, that this isn’t really a contradiction to what Br. JR has said. You’re talking about women’s orders, which had a remarkable rocky road after the Vatican II instruction to recover their charisms and simplify. I remember reading the details of the story of Carl Rogers and the IHM sisters in California, which I think is characteristic of the sort of thing you are describing. What happened was pretty grisly, but it was also fairly explainable without resorting to the liberal/conservative dispute that we tend to head to instinctively.
What happened was that this order sought to re-discover its charism, and for whatever reason found it difficult to do so. And such a thing is always made more difficult by sheer numbers (think teaching algebra to a class of 100 without interruption). Well, they didn’t find it easy to do. And this being 1964 (do you remember 1964?), it seemed like the sky was a limit, nothing was too new, and nothing was impossible. So they didn’t rule much out. And after they met Carl Rogers and his less scrupulous helpers who showed up on the scene, even less was ruled out. Rogers and company had a very good reputation, and were specialists in “non-directive therapy” and they were supposed to help the sisters discover what they were about. Only they didn’t. They helped them discover something else. To make a long story short, it all crashed. Very little is left of the order to this day.
The lesson to be learned out of all this is NOT that it’s bad to re-discover your real charism, far from it! The lesson to be learned is not to depart from it in the first place, or failing that, to be careful to identify it correctly if you have to return to it.
And also perhaps, there’s a second smaller lesson. It’s important that when any religious organization is started that it have a very distinct charism and a charism that can be lived. It’s not my job to discern that, nor yours really, but it was a lesson that someone should heed.
- Status